(09-16-2014 10:20 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I agree that the G5 need to band together. I think your statement that there is institutionalized differences between P5 and G5 on governance should be enough to wake up the G5 to reality and action.

I don't think yearly relegation will work, but relagation every 2 years (so there is a home and home) might work. Even then, you are pushing it.

I think you have to look at being a G5 two ways - football and non-football. A unified G5 would break non-football sports into regional conferences to save money. Football is not nearly as cost-conscious on travel, despite the large teams, due to the revenue produced.

The football G5 would negotiate a united TV contract to maximize leverage, and negotiate a united post-season to maximize leverage there. It would be top teams vs. top teams based on a selection committee or ranking system, not the current hodge-podge of min-payout bowls with fixed conference alignments no matter how good or bad the team is.

The other advantage of a united G5 is keeping IAA schools out. Teams that are good will be allowed to move up. Those who aren't good and aren't ready (Idaho, UMass) can not take advantage of conferences that are collapsing and need a quick call-up.

For those who say "the G5 won't schedule us" check out Baylor or the SEC. The Sunbelt is a de-facto third division of the SEC, the MAC a de-facto third division of the B1G.

I would hope at this point that the G5 would realize that they need to come together while the TV money is still good. However, given the history, I doubt they will.

This post makes the most sense.

One thing that gets overlooked too often is that regionalization of conferences would cut down on operating costs not only for football, but for hoops, baseball, soccer, "Olympic sports", etc; which is tremendously appealing to A.D.'s, and should be to G5 fans who want easier travel to games and local rivalries.

I also wonder if it wouldn't make regional broadcast packages more appealing.

The downside is that it promotes the group as a 2nd class division, but that has already happened. As long as G5 teams can and do continue to schedule P5 teams, there is no additional harm to be done.

It would take a huge amount of humility from a few AAC and MWC teams to agree to a geographic realignment. But the even tougher nut to crack is the disparity in basketball conference strength, which is much bigger than the gap in football between most of the G5 leagues. AAC and MWC "powers" should realize that they would be big dogs in regional conferences designed to promote rivalries and prop them up as annual champions with the best access to the postseason.

Why people keep wanting to turn football into soccer is beyond me. This "alliance" is simply an incredibly bad idea and I feel bad for you that you spent so much time on it.

(09-16-2014 09:07 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 07:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

Yup. The collusion against playing the G5 with anything but the last few available teams in each P5 has already cemented the P5 lineup for the next 6 years. I fear that by the end of the cycle, the P5 will only embolden that position and getting these kind of games (even with a huge chunk of the $75M as a carrot) will not be possible. The Access Bowl slot and the 25% of the at-large revenue from the CFP was the bone thrown to the G5 for not crying too much about the situation. Several G5 conferences will make far more from the CFP than their own TV deal.

Perhaps, I still feel that the payouts are the problem. Bowls with large payouts don't want to invite a G5. If they are paying big money--they know they can get a P5. A situation where a bowl is willing to pay big money---and wants a G5-P5 match-up doesn't exist. My guess is that a P5 is just fine sending a #3-5 selection to that bowl to pick up that pay check. Honestly---when has the P5 ever said no to millions of dollars? Make the payout high enough, and they will come.

The P5 said no to a playoff at first, even with the knowledge that they would make more money. The P5 has said no to expanding the playoff beyond 4 teams, even though they know it will make more money. You may be right, but also convincing the G5 to give up the money and literally hand it over to the P5 just to get a more prestigious bowl game might be a tough sell too.

It's really up each individual conference. The AAC could simply invest in thier own Miami Bowl and let the other G5's do as they wish. I think the idea is good for the entire G5 as a cooperative venture---but it doesn't have to include a conference that isn't interested. Any conference could do it. It's just about creating your own signature bowl. The AAC and CUSA each own a bowl, so it would be easiest for them to accomplish.

Right now---nothing can be done for 6 years. If the AAC set aside 1.5 million of thier playoff money annually into a bowl fund---in 6 years they would have a 9 million dollar fund to beef up the Miami Bowls payout.

No thanks. It does not allow for another Power Conference to rise.

(09-16-2014 04:02 PM)49erlew Wrote:  I admit, I spend a lot of time with my head in the clouds, dreaming up this and that and the other thing. Lately, I've been looking at the landscape in this brave new world of college football and wondering where we fit in, and how we can improve our place.

The access bowl slot is a nice thing to have for the G5, but it brings with it a slew of challenges. When we should be working together against the P5, we're fighting over a single slot. I also can't help but feel as if the access bowl was just given to pacify us. Should a G5 team go undefeated in a given year, I'm sure we'll hear the very same arguments against them making the playoffs that we did when Boise State, Cincinnati, etc. went undefeated in the BCS era.

The solution that I've come up with is a bold one that re-writes the conventions of college football, and is in no way, shape, form, or fashion realistic. It is, however, a pie in the sky, and I love those. So here goes:

The Group of Five conferences, along with BYU and Army, get together and form an alliance: the G5 Alliance. All current football conferences are dissolved in favor of a three-tiered promotion/relegation pyramid. The top twelve teams form Tier 1, split into Eastern and Western divisions of six teams each. The next twenty make up Tier 2, split into two ten-team divisions. Four eight-team divisions make up Tier 3. At the end of each season, the top team from each division is promoted to replace the worst team(s) from the division above.* Divisions are then redrawn, keeping divisions as geographically relevant as possible. The conferences remain as they currently stand for all other sports.

This does a few things. First of all, it ensures that the cream rises to the top. The strength-of-schedule argument that is so commonly used against the G5 programs that dare make an appearance on the national stage is severely lessened. A team like Marshall or UCF no longer has to take the SOS hit from Gordon Gee's Little Sisters of the Poor. While the likelihood of a team making it through the season undefeated is decreased, the playoff case of one that does make it through is much stronger.

For the second and third tier teams, the pyramid system provides more even competition against more local and regional opponents. At the bottom tiers, opponents are much closer together both on the map and on the field.

This is how it would look, based on last year's Warren Nolan numbers:

Tier 1

EAST
UCF
ECU
Bowling Green
Ball State
Marshall
Navy

WEST
NIU
Fresno State
North Texas
Utah State
Houston
Rice

Tier 2

EAST
Cincinnati
WKU
Buffalo
Toledo
Arkansas State
FAU
MT
South Alabama
Ohio
Central Michigan

WEST
BYU
UTSA
ULL
Boise State
SDSU
Colorado State
SJSU
ULM
Tulane
UNLV

Tier 3

NORTH
Kent State
Akron
UConn
Temple
Army
Eastern Michigan
Western Michigan
UMass

EAST
ODU
USF
FIU
Georgia State
Miami (OH)
Charlotte
App State
Georgia Southern

SOUTH
Texas State
Troy
SMU
Tulsa
Memphis
Louisiana Tech
UAB
Southern Miss

WEST
Wyoming
Nevada
New Mexico
UTEP
Air Force
Idaho
Hawai'i
NMSU

*The bottom two teams from each Tier 2 division are relegated, as there are a total of four teams that are promoted from Tier 3 each year.

Another European Soccer thread. Yippee.

(09-16-2014 05:43 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this only helps confirm the validity of labeling "P5" and "G5". Instead we should all be fighting to take down those labels and demand equal treatment for equal membership. There is no P5 and G5, there is only FBS.

We now have autonomy the line now is forever drawn. It will not disappear it will only get bolder.

This same "promotion/demotion" scheme could also apply to the B1G, PAC12, Big12, SEC and ACC - and has about the same chance of ever happening.

(09-16-2014 10:43 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:20 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I agree that the G5 need to band together. I think your statement that there is institutionalized differences between P5 and G5 on governance should be enough to wake up the G5 to reality and action.

I don't think yearly relegation will work, but relagation every 2 years (so there is a home and home) might work. Even then, you are pushing it.

I think you have to look at being a G5 two ways - football and non-football. A unified G5 would break non-football sports into regional conferences to save money. Football is not nearly as cost-conscious on travel, despite the large teams, due to the revenue produced.

The football G5 would negotiate a united TV contract to maximize leverage, and negotiate a united post-season to maximize leverage there. It would be top teams vs. top teams based on a selection committee or ranking system, not the current hodge-podge of min-payout bowls with fixed conference alignments no matter how good or bad the team is.

The other advantage of a united G5 is keeping IAA schools out. Teams that are good will be allowed to move up. Those who aren't good and aren't ready (Idaho, UMass) can not take advantage of conferences that are collapsing and need a quick call-up.

For those who say "the G5 won't schedule us" check out Baylor or the SEC. The Sunbelt is a de-facto third division of the SEC, the MAC a de-facto third division of the B1G.

I would hope at this point that the G5 would realize that they need to come together while the TV money is still good. However, given the history, I doubt they will.

This post makes the most sense.

One thing that gets overlooked too often is that regionalization of conferences would cut down on operating costs not only for football, but for hoops, baseball, soccer, "Olympic sports", etc; which is tremendously appealing to A.D.'s, and should be to G5 fans who want easier travel to games and local rivalries.

I also wonder if it wouldn't make regional broadcast packages more appealing.

The downside is that it promotes the group as a 2nd class division, but that has already happened. As long as G5 teams can and do continue to schedule P5 teams, there is no additional harm to be done.

It would take a huge amount of humility from a few AAC and MWC teams to agree to a geographic realignment. But the even tougher nut to crack is the disparity in basketball conference strength, which is much bigger than the gap in football between most of the G5 leagues. AAC and MWC "powers" should realize that they would be big dogs in regional conferences designed to promote rivalries and prop them up as annual champions with the best access to the postseason.

To get the G5 to work together, it would have to start out as a FB only discussion. No conference would agree to begin with realignment talks so it would need to concentrate on scheduling issues, post season opportunities and tv revenue. If the 5 would sit down with tv reps just to find out if all parties could improve their exposure and revenue by working together, then you have a jumping off place.

(09-16-2014 11:14 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Why people keep wanting to turn football into soccer is beyond me. This "alliance" is simply an incredibly bad idea and I feel bad for you that you spent so much time on it.

Thanks for feeling bad for me, but that's not necessary. Like I said, I enjoy coming up with stuff like this. It doesn't have to meet your approval to be worth my time.

(09-17-2014 03:18 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  No thanks. It does not allow for another Power Conference to rise.

My thoughts were that this creates that power conference. Each one of our conferences will always have teams that hold them back... it's just the nature of the beast. The top tier is basically a conference in and of itself, where every member has earned their place and has to perform to keep their place.

If we want a shot at dethroning the P5, the status quo isn't going to do it. They've stacked the deck against us for years. The only way we're going to beat them is to stack our own deck as best we can.

(09-17-2014 07:57 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:43 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 10:20 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I agree that the G5 need to band together. I think your statement that there is institutionalized differences between P5 and G5 on governance should be enough to wake up the G5 to reality and action.

I don't think yearly relegation will work, but relagation every 2 years (so there is a home and home) might work. Even then, you are pushing it.

I think you have to look at being a G5 two ways - football and non-football. A unified G5 would break non-football sports into regional conferences to save money. Football is not nearly as cost-conscious on travel, despite the large teams, due to the revenue produced.

The football G5 would negotiate a united TV contract to maximize leverage, and negotiate a united post-season to maximize leverage there. It would be top teams vs. top teams based on a selection committee or ranking system, not the current hodge-podge of min-payout bowls with fixed conference alignments no matter how good or bad the team is.

The other advantage of a united G5 is keeping IAA schools out. Teams that are good will be allowed to move up. Those who aren't good and aren't ready (Idaho, UMass) can not take advantage of conferences that are collapsing and need a quick call-up.

For those who say "the G5 won't schedule us" check out Baylor or the SEC. The Sunbelt is a de-facto third division of the SEC, the MAC a de-facto third division of the B1G.

I would hope at this point that the G5 would realize that they need to come together while the TV money is still good. However, given the history, I doubt they will.

This post makes the most sense.

One thing that gets overlooked too often is that regionalization of conferences would cut down on operating costs not only for football, but for hoops, baseball, soccer, "Olympic sports", etc; which is tremendously appealing to A.D.'s, and should be to G5 fans who want easier travel to games and local rivalries.

I also wonder if it wouldn't make regional broadcast packages more appealing.

The downside is that it promotes the group as a 2nd class division, but that has already happened. As long as G5 teams can and do continue to schedule P5 teams, there is no additional harm to be done.

It would take a huge amount of humility from a few AAC and MWC teams to agree to a geographic realignment. But the even tougher nut to crack is the disparity in basketball conference strength, which is much bigger than the gap in football between most of the G5 leagues. AAC and MWC "powers" should realize that they would be big dogs in regional conferences designed to promote rivalries and prop them up as annual champions with the best access to the postseason.

To get the G5 to work together, it would have to start out as a FB only discussion. No conference would agree to begin with realignment talks so it would need to concentrate on scheduling issues, post season opportunities and tv revenue. If the 5 would sit down with tv reps just to find out if all parties could improve their exposure and revenue by working together, then you have a jumping off place.

Thanks to y'all for actually discussing this respectfully.

Just to be clear, this was always intended to be a football-only arrangement. My original thought was that conferences would remain as they were for other sports, but I do agree that this actually does provide a framework for non-football sports to regionalize themselves. No two ways around it, football is the reason you've got teams from Texas playing all of their sports against teams from the Northeast.

That would kill what rivalries you have or are trying to build. Would also kill attendance, at least from a Cincy fan.
I want to see Houston, ECU, UCF, Houston etc.,on the conference slate and OOC we have been and are doing good
regional stuff, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue, Toledo, IU, Ohio, and national brands like BYU, and Miami Hurricanes.
We play Miami of Ohio every year and it always draws well, and it is the 4th oldest ongoing rivalry game in the country.
Due to realignment it might, in a few years, be the 2nd oldest.

We also have Michigan and Nebraska, but that is years down the road. We sellout our travel allotment to Tennessee, Ohio State, IU, Purdue, and you can find 5/10 K UC fans at an away game at Miami.

(09-17-2014 07:05 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  This same "promotion/demotion" scheme could also apply to the B1G, PAC12, Big12, SEC and ACC

It'd be nice seeing Purdues/Indianas/Wake Forests/Kansass/Colorados/Vanderbilts etc actually treated like the lower tier they are.

(09-17-2014 12:31 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 07:05 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  This same "promotion/demotion" scheme could also apply to the B1G, PAC12, Big12, SEC and ACC

It'd be nice seeing Purdues/Indianas/Wake Forests/Kansass/Colorados/Vanderbilts etc actually treated like the lower tier they are.

it would be nice to see G5 programs build their fan base and their conference to attract the kind of TV money, attendance, merchandise sales, donor support ect that they claim other schools have handed to them instead of expecting it to be handed to them

it is amazing the number of programs and fans of programs that claim they would be great if they were just GIVEN the opportunity to prove their ability to be great.......while they ignore that back before the OU/GA VS NCAA lawsuit all those programs had those opportunities and many other opportunities since then

and instead of investing in their program, trying to generate fan support and donations ect they simply choose to do nothing or to do the least possible to be at the D1-A level and then wondered why they were not as successful as top programs

there was nothing preventing conferences from the past or even the present from signing TV deals or starting a conference network or trying to do things to improve their position other than the fact that no one desires to see or pay for their product including a large % of their own fans and alumni

all of the schools you listed are not doing anything to prevent other programs and programs in the G5 from improving themselves no matter how much you pretend the are and the simple fact is if many of the programs that have fans begging to be GIVEN a chance were actually GIVEN that chance they would squander it and waste it to no end and they would make less use of it and perform worse than the programs they continue to try and call out for having something handed to them

instead of worrying about schools not doing well in P5 conferences try improving your own program and conference starting with the things you do control like fan support, donations, ticket sales and merchandise sales

(09-16-2014 04:02 PM)49erlew Wrote:  I admit, I spend a lot of time with my head in the clouds, dreaming up this and that and the other thing. Lately, I've been looking at the landscape in this brave new world of college football and wondering where we fit in, and how we can improve our place.

The access bowl slot is a nice thing to have for the G5, but it brings with it a slew of challenges. When we should be working together against the P5, we're fighting over a single slot. I also can't help but feel as if the access bowl was just given to pacify us. Should a G5 team go undefeated in a given year, I'm sure we'll hear the very same arguments against them making the playoffs that we did when Boise State, Cincinnati, etc. went undefeated in the BCS era.

The solution that I've come up with is a bold one that re-writes the conventions of college football, and is in no way, shape, form, or fashion realistic. It is, however, a pie in the sky, and I love those. So here goes:

The Group of Five conferences, along with BYU and Army, get together and form an alliance: the G5 Alliance. All current football conferences are dissolved in favor of a three-tiered promotion/relegation pyramid. The top twelve teams form Tier 1, split into Eastern and Western divisions of six teams each. The next twenty make up Tier 2, split into two ten-team divisions. Four eight-team divisions make up Tier 3. At the end of each season, the top team from each division is promoted to replace the worst team(s) from the division above.* Divisions are then redrawn, keeping divisions as geographically relevant as possible. The conferences remain as they currently stand for all other sports.

This does a few things. First of all, it ensures that the cream rises to the top. The strength-of-schedule argument that is so commonly used against the G5 programs that dare make an appearance on the national stage is severely lessened. A team like Marshall or UCF no longer has to take the SOS hit from Gordon Gee's Little Sisters of the Poor. While the likelihood of a team making it through the season undefeated is decreased, the playoff case of one that does make it through is much stronger.

For the second and third tier teams, the pyramid system provides more even competition against more local and regional opponents. At the bottom tiers, opponents are much closer together both on the map and on the field.

This is how it would look, based on last year's Warren Nolan numbers:

Tier 1

EAST
UCF
ECU
Bowling Green
Ball State
Marshall
Navy

WEST
NIU
Fresno State
North Texas
Utah State
Houston
Rice

Tier 2

EAST
Cincinnati
WKU
Buffalo
Toledo
Arkansas State
FAU
MT
South Alabama
Ohio
Central Michigan

WEST
BYU
UTSA
ULL
Boise State
SDSU
Colorado State
SJSU
ULM
Tulane
UNLV

Tier 3

NORTH
Kent State
Akron
UConn
Temple
Army
Eastern Michigan
Western Michigan
UMass

EAST
ODU
USF
FIU
Georgia State
Miami (OH)
Charlotte
App State
Georgia Southern

SOUTH
Texas State
Troy
SMU
Tulsa
Memphis
Louisiana Tech
UAB
Southern Miss

WEST
Wyoming
Nevada
New Mexico
UTEP
Air Force
Idaho
Hawai'i
NMSU

*The bottom two teams from each Tier 2 division are relegated, as there are a total of four teams that are promoted from Tier 3 each year.

I appreciate the thought that you put into your proposal. However, a similar suggestion was presented in the past by another member that focused on the MAC and CUSA forming a similar alliance (I can’t remember his name or locate the thread). Nevertheless, a better solution in my opinion is for the G5 to have a playoff for the Access Spot that includes the highest ranked independent since an odd number makes it less practical. Consequently, this would give us a 6 team playoff. The two highest ranked teams would get byes. We could either use the current playoff committee or form are own to decide on the pairings. The highest ranked teams would hosts the playoff games. One less game might have to be taken off each G5 school’s schedule to make this playoff proposal work, but I think the idea is worth it…..

My proposal (which no one likes much around here) isn't quite ready to happen TODAY, but should be very attractive in the next five years.

The G5 should create their own playoff. They could make more money on a 7-game tournament (8 teams, 3 rounds) than they get from their measly appearance in an "access bowl" on the New Year's Six.

Round one--Friday and Saturday during Heisman/award week. These games would be very, very popular because they'd be the only games on Friday and Saturday...and they'd feature very solid (albeit, not P5) teams. Home game for high seeds. Schools are still in session so the crowds would be awesome.

Round two--Christmas Day. The "final 4" for the G5 playoff. Everybody is home. There are a few other events on TV, but it could become a tradition that sticks. G5-owned "bowls" for maximum revenue. Split most of that money among all conferences...4 participating teams get extra of course.

Championship game--The Friday between New Year's Day and the CFP championship game. Again, not much else on TV, so it would garner very strong ratings...and it'd be a great football game. Again, G5-owned "bowl."

ESPN has already shown a great interest in G5 rights (the MAC's contract for example...I laughed as a PSU fan while I watched PSU on the MAC network during our Akron game... :) ). They would pay handsomely.

An example for this year... (simply using current AP poll for top-4 seedings...just spit-balling the rest)
Friday Dec. 12
7pm--#8 UCF at #1 BYU
9:30pm--#7 Boise State at #2 ECU
Saturday Dec. 13
7pm--#6 Northern Illinois at #3 Marshall
9:30pm--# Memphis at #4 Cincy

Dec. 25
6pm--#1 BYU vs. #4 Cincy in Phoenix
9:30pm--#2 ECU vs. #3 Marshall in Orlando

January 9
9pm--#1 BYU vs. #2 ECU in Dallas

Realignment and expansion for the P5 can come and go...certain teams can move out, other programs can move in...but the G5 playoff can be a staple. Why not have "something" to play for, rather than just crumbs at the P5's table?

No. It would become the one of the 3 classics blunders of all time.
"First, never get involved in a land war in Asia and second only slightly less well known, is never go up against a Silician when death is on the line."

How would a promotion/relegation system be an "alliance?" Seems more like another subdivision.

And as for the G5 playoff proposal, no. Did anyone watch the FCS playoffs? No. And ESPN hasn't shown great interest in the MAC's rights. They gave them a paltry raise in comparison to what they pay even the AAC or MWC, let alone the P5 - and it's still far less than $1M/school/year.

(09-18-2014 11:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  My proposal (which no one likes much around here) isn't quite ready to happen TODAY, but should be very attractive in the next five years.

The G5 should create their own playoff. They could make more money on a 7-game tournament (8 teams, 3 rounds) than they get from their measly appearance in an "access bowl" on the New Year's Six.

Round one--Friday and Saturday during Heisman/award week. These games would be very, very popular because they'd be the only games on Friday and Saturday...and they'd feature very solid (albeit, not P5) teams. Home game for high seeds. Schools are still in session so the crowds would be awesome.

Round two--Christmas Day. The "final 4" for the G5 playoff. Everybody is home. There are a few other events on TV, but it could become a tradition that sticks. G5-owned "bowls" for maximum revenue. Split most of that money among all conferences...4 participating teams get extra of course.

Championship game--The Friday between New Year's Day and the CFP championship game. Again, not much else on TV, so it would garner very strong ratings...and it'd be a great football game. Again, G5-owned "bowl."

ESPN has already shown a great interest in G5 rights (the MAC's contract for example...I laughed as a PSU fan while I watched PSU on the MAC network during our Akron game... :) ). They would pay handsomely.

An example for this year... (simply using current AP poll for top-4 seedings...just spit-balling the rest)
Friday Dec. 12
7pm--#8 UCF at #1 BYU
9:30pm--#7 Boise State at #2 ECU
Saturday Dec. 13
7pm--#6 Northern Illinois at #3 Marshall
9:30pm--# Memphis at #4 Cincy

Dec. 25
6pm--#1 BYU vs. #4 Cincy in Phoenix
9:30pm--#2 ECU vs. #3 Marshall in Orlando

January 9
9pm--#1 BYU vs. #2 ECU in Dallas

Realignment and expansion for the P5 can come and go...certain teams can move out, other programs can move in...but the G5 playoff can be a staple. Why not have "something" to play for, rather than just crumbs at the P5's table?

Noooooo!!!! A play-off would just reinforce the idea that the G5 is not really D1 FBS football. It screams that we are seperate and not part of the same division as the power conferences. Such a separate playoff is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need to do. What we need to do is more closely tie our post season to the P5 post season. Thus, I would be all for the G5 working on a "champions" bowl series like the one I outlined where some major ranked P5 schools are participants---

G5 #1 vs ranked at large----already exists as the G5 access bowl

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

**created by the G5


What I propose is just swapping out 3 of the new crappy bowls the G5 created and replacing them with upper-tier non-CFP bowls that are solid destinations for the G5 champions. Yes, it will cost us money to attract high quality ranked P5 opponents. But it will also make us money in the long run.

Right now, if your G5 conference champ doesn't make the access bowl, the typical G5 champion is looking at a very bleak post season destination. If we improve the post season destination and make it a nice payday for a #3-5 P5 school---then we make those bowls a big deal because a upper tier P5 schools will be going there. By having a post season destination that is important---then becoming a G5 champion is more important. That will increase the interest in ALL the G5 conference races. If you increase the interest in the G5 conference races---then you increase the value of those media rights.

(09-18-2014 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  My proposal (which no one likes much around here) isn't quite ready to happen TODAY, but should be very attractive in the next five years.

The G5 should create their own playoff. They could make more money on a 7-game tournament (8 teams, 3 rounds) than they get from their measly appearance in an "access bowl" on the New Year's Six.

Round one--Friday and Saturday during Heisman/award week. These games would be very, very popular because they'd be the only games on Friday and Saturday...and they'd feature very solid (albeit, not P5) teams. Home game for high seeds. Schools are still in session so the crowds would be awesome.

Round two--Christmas Day. The "final 4" for the G5 playoff. Everybody is home. There are a few other events on TV, but it could become a tradition that sticks. G5-owned "bowls" for maximum revenue. Split most of that money among all conferences...4 participating teams get extra of course.

Championship game--The Friday between New Year's Day and the CFP championship game. Again, not much else on TV, so it would garner very strong ratings...and it'd be a great football game. Again, G5-owned "bowl."

ESPN has already shown a great interest in G5 rights (the MAC's contract for example...I laughed as a PSU fan while I watched PSU on the MAC network during our Akron game... :) ). They would pay handsomely.

An example for this year... (simply using current AP poll for top-4 seedings...just spit-balling the rest)
Friday Dec. 12
7pm--#8 UCF at #1 BYU
9:30pm--#7 Boise State at #2 ECU
Saturday Dec. 13
7pm--#6 Northern Illinois at #3 Marshall
9:30pm--# Memphis at #4 Cincy

Dec. 25
6pm--#1 BYU vs. #4 Cincy in Phoenix
9:30pm--#2 ECU vs. #3 Marshall in Orlando

January 9
9pm--#1 BYU vs. #2 ECU in Dallas

Realignment and expansion for the P5 can come and go...certain teams can move out, other programs can move in...but the G5 playoff can be a staple. Why not have "something" to play for, rather than just crumbs at the P5's table?

Noooooo!!!! A play-off would just reinforce the idea that the G5 is not really D1 FBS football. It screams that we are seperate and not part of the same division as the power conferences. Such a separate playoff is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need to do. What we need to do is more closely tie our post season to the P5 post season. Thus, I would be all for the G5 working on a "champions" bowl series like the one I outlined where some major ranked P5 schools are participants---

G5 #1 vs ranked at large----already exists as the G5 access bowl

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

**created by the G5


What I propose is just swapping out 3 of the new crappy bowls the G5 created and replacing them with upper-tier non-CFP bowls that are solid destinations for the G5 champions. Yes, it will cost us money to attract high quality ranked P5 opponents. But it will also make us money in the long run.

Right now, if your G5 conference champ doesn't make the access bowl, the typical G5 champion is looking at a very bleak post season destination. If we improve the post season destination and make it a nice payday for a #3-5 P5 school---then we make those bowls a big deal because a upper tier P5 schools will be going there. By having a post season destination that is important---then becoming a G5 champion is more important. That will increase the interest in ALL the G5 conference races. If you increase the interest in the G5 conference races---then you increase the value of those media rights.

@Attackcoog

What part of: we make less money, have the worst bowls, and about a 99.99% chance of not playing in "their" playoff do you not understand.... The term "G5" means "we are not like the P5." You and I have had this discussion before, and you seem to think this is fantasy football we’re talking about. If you would look at reality, “we are separate and not part of… the power conferences.” Out of all the American fans, I respect you the most and even nominated you to be a moderator. However, as very intelligent as you are... you baffle me with your logic that if the G5 attempts to have a playoff, it will cause a further separation in perception between the P5 and us. How? We would be playing to determine the best G5 school to play one of them. Furthermore, the purpose is to do what the P5 refuse to do: Decide who gets our only access spot on the field—not by a committee. Nevertheless, I will admit that the term “playoff” is not the best one to use. Instead, a "play-in" tournament is a more appropriate term in my opinion….

In closing, I still respect you a lot and hope that you one day become a moderator……

(09-18-2014 03:14 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  My proposal (which no one likes much around here) isn't quite ready to happen TODAY, but should be very attractive in the next five years.

The G5 should create their own playoff. They could make more money on a 7-game tournament (8 teams, 3 rounds) than they get from their measly appearance in an "access bowl" on the New Year's Six.

Round one--Friday and Saturday during Heisman/award week. These games would be very, very popular because they'd be the only games on Friday and Saturday...and they'd feature very solid (albeit, not P5) teams. Home game for high seeds. Schools are still in session so the crowds would be awesome.

Round two--Christmas Day. The "final 4" for the G5 playoff. Everybody is home. There are a few other events on TV, but it could become a tradition that sticks. G5-owned "bowls" for maximum revenue. Split most of that money among all conferences...4 participating teams get extra of course.

Championship game--The Friday between New Year's Day and the CFP championship game. Again, not much else on TV, so it would garner very strong ratings...and it'd be a great football game. Again, G5-owned "bowl."

ESPN has already shown a great interest in G5 rights (the MAC's contract for example...I laughed as a PSU fan while I watched PSU on the MAC network during our Akron game... :) ). They would pay handsomely.

An example for this year... (simply using current AP poll for top-4 seedings...just spit-balling the rest)
Friday Dec. 12
7pm--#8 UCF at #1 BYU
9:30pm--#7 Boise State at #2 ECU
Saturday Dec. 13
7pm--#6 Northern Illinois at #3 Marshall
9:30pm--# Memphis at #4 Cincy

Dec. 25
6pm--#1 BYU vs. #4 Cincy in Phoenix
9:30pm--#2 ECU vs. #3 Marshall in Orlando

January 9
9pm--#1 BYU vs. #2 ECU in Dallas

Realignment and expansion for the P5 can come and go...certain teams can move out, other programs can move in...but the G5 playoff can be a staple. Why not have "something" to play for, rather than just crumbs at the P5's table?

Noooooo!!!! A play-off would just reinforce the idea that the G5 is not really D1 FBS football. It screams that we are seperate and not part of the same division as the power conferences. Such a separate playoff is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need to do. What we need to do is more closely tie our post season to the P5 post season. Thus, I would be all for the G5 working on a "champions" bowl series like the one I outlined where some major ranked P5 schools are participants---

G5 #1 vs ranked at large----already exists as the G5 access bowl

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

**created by the G5


What I propose is just swapping out 3 of the new crappy bowls the G5 created and replacing them with upper-tier non-CFP bowls that are solid destinations for the G5 champions. Yes, it will cost us money to attract high quality ranked P5 opponents. But it will also make us money in the long run.

Right now, if your G5 conference champ doesn't make the access bowl, the typical G5 champion is looking at a very bleak post season destination. If we improve the post season destination and make it a nice payday for a #3-5 P5 school---then we make those bowls a big deal because a upper tier P5 schools will be going there. By having a post season destination that is important---then becoming a G5 champion is more important. That will increase the interest in ALL the G5 conference races. If you increase the interest in the G5 conference races---then you increase the value of those media rights.

@Attackcoog

What part of: we make less money, have the worst bowls, and about a 99.99% chance of not playing in "their" playoff do you not understand.... The term "G5" means "we are not like the P5." You and I have had this discussion before, and you seem to think this is fantasy football we’re talking about. If you would look at reality, “we are separate and not part of… the power conferences.” Out of all the American fans, I respect you the most and even nominated you to be a moderator. However, as very intelligent as you are... you baffle me with your logic that if the G5 attempts to have a playoff, it will cause a further separation in perception between the P5 and us. How? We would be playing to determine the best G5 school to play one of them. Furthermore, the purpose is to do what the P5 refuse to do: Decide who gets our only access spot on the field—not by a committee. Nevertheless, I will admit that the term “playoff” is not the best one to use. Instead, a "play-in" tournament is a more appropriate term in my opinion….

In closing, I still respect you a lot and hope that you one day become a moderator……

But that's not what is proposed above. What's proposed above is a playoff to determine the G5 champion for the sake of naming a champion, not to determine who gets the Access bowl spot.

But even so, you would have the G5 champion have to play in 3 extra games to determine who plays in the Access Bowl? That's three more games worth of injuries, fatigue, and expense. It would be a huge disadvantage to the P5 team it would play in the Access Bowl - even more so than it may be talent-wise already. I don't use this often, but it really is appropriate here:

(09-18-2014 03:25 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:14 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  My proposal (which no one likes much around here) isn't quite ready to happen TODAY, but should be very attractive in the next five years.

The G5 should create their own playoff. They could make more money on a 7-game tournament (8 teams, 3 rounds) than they get from their measly appearance in an "access bowl" on the New Year's Six.

Round one--Friday and Saturday during Heisman/award week. These games would be very, very popular because they'd be the only games on Friday and Saturday...and they'd feature very solid (albeit, not P5) teams. Home game for high seeds. Schools are still in session so the crowds would be awesome.

Round two--Christmas Day. The "final 4" for the G5 playoff. Everybody is home. There are a few other events on TV, but it could become a tradition that sticks. G5-owned "bowls" for maximum revenue. Split most of that money among all conferences...4 participating teams get extra of course.

Championship game--The Friday between New Year's Day and the CFP championship game. Again, not much else on TV, so it would garner very strong ratings...and it'd be a great football game. Again, G5-owned "bowl."

ESPN has already shown a great interest in G5 rights (the MAC's contract for example...I laughed as a PSU fan while I watched PSU on the MAC network during our Akron game... :) ). They would pay handsomely.

An example for this year... (simply using current AP poll for top-4 seedings...just spit-balling the rest)
Friday Dec. 12
7pm--#8 UCF at #1 BYU
9:30pm--#7 Boise State at #2 ECU
Saturday Dec. 13
7pm--#6 Northern Illinois at #3 Marshall
9:30pm--# Memphis at #4 Cincy

Dec. 25
6pm--#1 BYU vs. #4 Cincy in Phoenix
9:30pm--#2 ECU vs. #3 Marshall in Orlando

January 9
9pm--#1 BYU vs. #2 ECU in Dallas

Realignment and expansion for the P5 can come and go...certain teams can move out, other programs can move in...but the G5 playoff can be a staple. Why not have "something" to play for, rather than just crumbs at the P5's table?

Noooooo!!!! A play-off would just reinforce the idea that the G5 is not really D1 FBS football. It screams that we are seperate and not part of the same division as the power conferences. Such a separate playoff is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need to do. What we need to do is more closely tie our post season to the P5 post season. Thus, I would be all for the G5 working on a "champions" bowl series like the one I outlined where some major ranked P5 schools are participants---

G5 #1 vs ranked at large----already exists as the G5 access bowl

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl**

**created by the G5


What I propose is just swapping out 3 of the new crappy bowls the G5 created and replacing them with upper-tier non-CFP bowls that are solid destinations for the G5 champions. Yes, it will cost us money to attract high quality ranked P5 opponents. But it will also make us money in the long run.

Right now, if your G5 conference champ doesn't make the access bowl, the typical G5 champion is looking at a very bleak post season destination. If we improve the post season destination and make it a nice payday for a #3-5 P5 school---then we make those bowls a big deal because a upper tier P5 schools will be going there. By having a post season destination that is important---then becoming a G5 champion is more important. That will increase the interest in ALL the G5 conference races. If you increase the interest in the G5 conference races---then you increase the value of those media rights.

@Attackcoog

What part of: we make less money, have the worst bowls, and about a 99.99% chance of not playing in "their" playoff do you not understand.... The term "G5" means "we are not like the P5." You and I have had this discussion before, and you seem to think this is fantasy football we’re talking about. If you would look at reality, “we are separate and not part of… the power conferences.” Out of all the American fans, I respect you the most and even nominated you to be a moderator. However, as very intelligent as you are... you baffle me with your logic that if the G5 attempts to have a playoff, it will cause a further separation in perception between the P5 and us. How? We would be playing to determine the best G5 school to play one of them. Furthermore, the purpose is to do what the P5 refuse to do: Decide who gets our only access spot on the field—not by a committee. Nevertheless, I will admit that the term “playoff” is not the best one to use. Instead, a "play-in" tournament is a more appropriate term in my opinion….

In closing, I still respect you a lot and hope that you one day become a moderator……

But that's not what is proposed above. What's proposed above is a playoff to determine the G5 champion for the sake of naming a champion, not to determine who gets the Access bowl spot.

But even so, you would have the G5 champion have to play in 3 extra games to determine who plays in the Access Bowl? That's three more games worth of injuries, fatigue, and expense. It would be a huge disadvantage to the P5 team it would play in the Access Bowl - even more so than it may be talent-wise already. I don't use this often, but it really is appropriate here:

Read post #33 where I state, "One less game might have to be taken off each G5 school’s schedule to make this playoff proposal work, but I think the idea is worth it….." However, your injuries point is a very valid point, which I agree makes the idea less practical.

Btw... You are the other member I nominated (2 was the max) to be a moderator.... <=back at =>you....